NBA Lottery Thread
- Thread starter kb02
- Start date
- Status
Yes, and the article is basically talking about that being the wave of the future and fluffing up their GM as the next great for the way they've built their team. Like Steelevt said, credit goes to the coach that took a roster that looked like chaos prior to him and made it work. I'm saying there are things about the way they've gone about their team build that will likely come back to bite them so they better not write this up as the new "process" on it's own yet. Drafting for position is fine depending on the asset you're using. For instance, the Kings have a hole on the wing so if they draft a wing at 9 the odds of that pick working for them goes up dramatically. Picking a talent who is likely going to be placed on the backburner the way some of the young Hawks have is a loss in value.
And we have to see how they look next year. I mean, lets look at the Heat this year, right? I do think the Hawks are a much more qualified team experience and depth wise but the issues with rotation crunch injuries put off will be back next year. Not to mention a maxed John Collins who they have pretty much no choice but to cave in to.
That would be gutsy and I agree, I think they should look at something like that using some of the young pieces they have. That is if they still have retained enough value, which I'm not sure how much Okongwu, Reddish, and Hunter could nab TBH. They are in a tough spot though. They just made it to the eastern finals with a young team. Now, of course as I kind of talked about above, it wasn't really the young talent that got them there though other than their core of Collins/Young. It was all the veteran depth they barricaded in front of them although Reddish and others shined at times.
I’m saying that Nate took the same exact team that was 14-20 to the ECF after going 27-11 to end the season. All this talk about drafting made no difference at the start of the year when they were under performing but after Nate takes them that far, you want to give credit to the GM? Did the gm magically draft some players mid season that made the team fit better and got them over the hump?
And a good question is would the Hawks in theory be in a better spot today if they had a number 4, 6, and 10 pick on their list of assets as opposed to the players they chose with those assets? And I'm not saying those players weren't rightfully picked where they should have been in their respective draft, but we all know the usage of a pick after the fact is huge in determining it's value as time goes on. I still like Reddish a lot. Hunter is solid. I always saw Okongwu as a reach at 6 and more of a Landry type but he's been solid too. But could you imagine if they could turn those players back into picks? They'd have a package for a superstar.
I absolutely agree with you but this is of course always something you just know after a some time passed by. Was that the right pick? What else could you have got?
For me the Hawks are also a "special" case as I did not expect to see them getting so far this year (to be honest also not in the next years) - but that makes it of course more interesting to think about what would have been possible if they would have done things different in the past.
For me the Hawks are also a "special" case as I did not expect to see them getting so far this year (to be honest also not in the next years) - but that makes it of course more interesting to think about what would have been possible if they would have done things different in the past.
The GM drafted the players that the coach used so you tell me. I’m not discrediting the job Nate did with the team, but there were plenty of factors that impacted their poor record to start the year start (injuries, a coach that lost the locker room, etc.). The GM gets the players, the coach uses the players. I guess we are talking chicken or the egg.
I really don’t care one bit about the Hawks….I just found the article interesting. Generally along the same lines of other teams that develop a system (or “culture”) that seem to produce a collective that is greater than the sum of its parts. There are skill sets, aptitude, personality, etc., that would cause one team to select a player that pundits think is the “best player available”. I think sometimes people confuse best player available with perceived best draft “value” (whether it be because of mock drafts or even general consensus).
I really don’t care one bit about the Hawks….I just found the article interesting. Generally along the same lines of other teams that develop a system (or “culture”) that seem to produce a collective that is greater than the sum of its parts. There are skill sets, aptitude, personality, etc., that would cause one team to select a player that pundits think is the “best player available”. I think sometimes people confuse best player available with perceived best draft “value” (whether it be because of mock drafts or even general consensus).
I think taking either approach to an extreme is bad management. Bey was a better fit but Hali was clearly the BPA so taking Hali was fine.
with the number of guards we currently have and the lack of front court depth the fit/BPA balance swings a bit further to fit for us. But if Suggs falls into our lap then you might still go that direction but the gap will have to be significant.
the problem with drafting around 10 is given the desire and scarcity of big wings the players who fall into that range are almost always guards.
with the number of guards we currently have and the lack of front court depth the fit/BPA balance swings a bit further to fit for us. But if Suggs falls into our lap then you might still go that direction but the gap will have to be significant.
the problem with drafting around 10 is given the desire and scarcity of big wings the players who fall into that range are almost always guards.
And while Haliburton isn't a great fit in totality (as evidenced by the inability to totally go BPA in a draft like this one because of the size of Fox/Haliburton), he was the reasonable BPA fit because he's a glue guy at heart and just big enough to potentially play full time at SG. Yeah, if Suggs falls you take him and run. Maybe straight for a trade once you've kicked the wheels on that 3 guard lineup during the season if and when it doesn't pan out.
I'll leave this here. Looks like Bogdan sees the same train coming.
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-...-loss-to-giannis-antetokounmpo-and-the-bucks/
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-...-loss-to-giannis-antetokounmpo-and-the-bucks/
That was one of his bigger mistakes as GM. That #10 pick should have been a key player for us and Fox's partner in crime for the first 6 years of his career at least and he just threw it away on a couple of longshots. He'd already drafted Fox at that point so the initial sting wasn't as painful as some other draft day decisions have been but it was still a missed opportunity that we couldn't afford.
I’m not sure Wagner doesn’t have more upside than people realize. That doesn’t mean he would be my pick per se but I could live with it. Given Wagner was growing and his BBIQ, I think he will be a much better offensive player than people think.
He reminds me of my son who still hadn’t put on man muscle at 19 yet. None of the Big 4 collegiate water polo teams offered him because he hadn’t matured. Wagner is in the same boat. It affects strength to finish and angles on your shot.
He reminds me of my son who still hadn’t put on man muscle at 19 yet. None of the Big 4 collegiate water polo teams offered him because he hadn’t matured. Wagner is in the same boat. It affects strength to finish and angles on your shot.
maybe I missed something in the article but I didn’t see anything inflammatory there. He is just stating the obvious: the Hawks have a bunch of young guys that need playing time and are due pay checks. Some redundancy depth wise as well and let’s face it teams are consistently changing anyway. I doubt this hurt any fans or teammates feelings.
- Status